jerry12953
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 12,421
- Name
- Jeremy Moore
- Edit My Images
- No
Yes, but if knew more about it you'd realise that it's more than "the usual stuff"!
It's official... digital is crap...
- Thread starter Pookeyhead
- Start date
Yes, but if knew more about it you'd realise that it's more than "the usual stuff"!
Byker28i
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 21,339
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I've seen some great, interesting landscape based art in exhibitions.
Donovan Wylie - Northern Ireland - http://www.magnumphotos.com/C.aspx?VP3=CMS3&VF=MAGO31_10_VForm&ERID=24KL53Z3Z3
Don McCullin -
Jino Lee - black and white travel images are stunning when seen displayed large - http://www.jinolee.com.sg/Travel/B/
David Fathi - Anecdotal - http://www.davidfathi.com/anecdotal.php
Nicoló Degiorgis- Hidden Islam - http://www.rorhof.com/books/hidden-islam (or doesn't urban landscapes count?)
That's from the top of my head from this year I think
OP
Pookeyhead
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 11,746
- Name
- David
- Edit My Images
- No
I meant I'm sick of seeing it generally... If you are saying OnLandscape is different, I may well take a look. Thanks.
steveo_mcg
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 6,319
- Name
- Steven
- Edit My Images
- Yes
If nothing else the editor likes playing around with proper cameras, he has a nice 54 and his own drum scanning business.
jerry12953
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 12,421
- Name
- Jeremy Moore
- Edit My Images
- No
In my opinion also it isn't as good as it was a few years ago; it seems to have become more mainstream recently. I would probably have cancelled by subs as well if for some reason I wasn't getting free copies! But it would be worth having a look and possibly delving into the back numbers if you have the time.
Hell on earth
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 1,948
- Name
- Helen
- Edit My Images
- No
Well anyone that has ever used a darkroom will know you can do a fair bit of manipulation, right for what film you use.....
- Messages
- 9,277
- Edit My Images
- No
We have covered this already. Sure, manipulation can be done in the darkroom but it is in no way as easy as it is on a computer, and as such, most darkroom users past and present do very little.
Steve.
Last edited:
OP
Pookeyhead
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 11,746
- Name
- David
- Edit My Images
- No
By the look of most stuff on Flickr, I assumed that's what they did.
- Messages
- 9,277
- Edit My Images
- No
http://phogotraphy.com/2015/12/08/national-park-service-100000-job-opening/
No digital!! (well perhaps a little).
Steve.
No digital!! (well perhaps a little).
Steve.
Last edited:
OP
Pookeyhead
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 11,746
- Name
- David
- Edit My Images
- No
Oh God.... you had to mention Fathi.... that will get the usual crowds out with the pitchforks.
Actually... on this subject, some of the best landscape work I've seen recently is by an old colleague of mine called Yan Preston. While done before, she travelled the Yangtze river, documenting every so often... a fixed distance - forget how much now. It's a brilliant mix of landscape and documentary. All large format stuff.. beautifully done.
http://www.worldphoto.org/community/blogs/yan-prestons-mother-river/
Her website is here...
http://www.yanpreston.com/forest/4564469231
More on Mother RIver here...
http://www.motherriver.info/
Awe inspiring project.
Flickr has 10+ billion images on it, I doubt you've seen even half a percent of what is on it.
Bythesea
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 1,133
- Name
- Brian
- Edit My Images
- No
Except you don't have to. From a population of 10 billion you only have to look at a sample size of between 16 and 17k to have a 99% confidence level +/- 1%.
OP
Pookeyhead
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 11,746
- Name
- David
- Edit My Images
- No
Byker28i
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 21,339
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I saw that this year - Format? A large exhibition of the work, was really interesting and very well presented.
As was Fathi's, a whole display wall full of images and information from the project. Very well presented.
Last edited:
Weren't they saying that at the last election? How did those polls work out? Imagine David in his class saying he doesn't have to look at your work because the statistics show that it will be no good. You can't run a poll to determine if it is good or not, you'll have to actually look at them and he hasn't looked at half a percent of them.
Whenever I read about your take on these subjects it comes across as you don't care about the image as much as you care about what idea is hung on it.
Bythesea
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 1,133
- Name
- Brian
- Edit My Images
- No
But the problem with those is that their sample size was too small. For a population size of the UK and for the same level of confidence they would also have needed between 16 and 17k. They usually ask around 1k, so no wonder they aren't accurate.
jerry12953
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 12,421
- Name
- Jeremy Moore
- Edit My Images
- No
This garbage came into my inbox just now.
"In the webinar Gavin will demonstrate how easy it is to use StudioMagic II tool sets, including Enviro, LightingEffex, Compositor, Reflections and HyperZap. You’ll also learn how to change seasons, add snow, make lightning, add clouds, birds & moons plus a myriad of other things. StudioMagic II for Photoshop, is Mac or PC."
In my opinion this is the unacceptable face of digital.......
"In the webinar Gavin will demonstrate how easy it is to use StudioMagic II tool sets, including Enviro, LightingEffex, Compositor, Reflections and HyperZap. You’ll also learn how to change seasons, add snow, make lightning, add clouds, birds & moons plus a myriad of other things. StudioMagic II for Photoshop, is Mac or PC."
In my opinion this is the unacceptable face of digital.......
The polling companies know their business I'm sure. The problem is trying to apply that flawed methodology to 10 billion photos over such a broad spectrum and you've looked at barely any of them then you can't really make a fair assessment based on such limited knowledge.
Byker28i
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 21,339
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Agree, but theres a market for pretty pictures and the software that goes into them. Seen the adverts for the 'portrait' software that adds makeup, so much skin smoothing etrc
Why is it unacceptable?
PMN
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 2,531
- Name
- Paul
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I was wondering the same, there are countless possible situations (including commercial ones) where such 'manipulation' is required and perfectly valid. Not all photography has to be about art and it baffles me why some people think it does.
Steve B
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 888
- Name
- Steve Bennett
- Edit My Images
- No
Interesting stance, I presume you dont agree that paint is a valid way of creating a picture aswell.
Bythesea
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 1,133
- Name
- Brian
- Edit My Images
- No
But as you said, they got it wrong, so perhaps they don't (or at least aren't applying it properly).
However, as the reason for the original post was to get in your usual dig at PH it probably isn't worth taking it any further.
jerry12953
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 12,421
- Name
- Jeremy Moore
- Edit My Images
- No
- Messages
- 20,964
- Name
- Pete
- Edit My Images
- Yes
IMO manipulation and diguital artistry is fine if you are honest about what you've done and don't try to present the original as a photo - if someone wants to spend hours at the computer making moons and bird, and doubtless faeries, dragons, elves etc then fine ... personally i'd rather by out taking photos
OP
Pookeyhead
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 11,746
- Name
- David
- Edit My Images
- No
That's absolutely correct, yes. I wouldn't say I don't care at ALL about the image, but making pretty pictures is easy... especially these days. Anyone can do it. What the image is about is, and always has been paramount. I'm not suggesting any old crap can be highly praised so long as it has a strong purpose, but it's the purpose and content that makes a great image more than the technical stuff, which is why there's so much great technical stuff on Flickr that no one gives a stuff about, and all the people taking it will never acheive anything beyond getting likes on Flickr.
I think they'll have a pretty good idea what they are doing consider they do it for a living in tens of countries and make millions of pounds.
As for PH picking him up on points is hardly having a dig.
But what are they supposed to be achieving? Is it all about aiming to be a sociologist or environmentalist with a camera and carrying a message or text to explain the image or working on a project?
OP
Pookeyhead
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 11,746
- Name
- David
- Edit My Images
- No
They're creating work that makes people think, or raises a topic of discussion, or makes some point about something. All work needs purpose though. Sports photography has purpose - it's to show people what happened at a certain sporting event. Wedding photography has purpose - it is to capture the events and emotions of the wedding day.
Even landscape has purpose - it's to show the beauty of the land... but here's where we start to unravel a little. For example... Most wedding photographs look the same: They follow the same formula and it's not easy to tell the work of one wedding photographer from another's, but it doesn't matter because it is created as a bespoke product for a couple of people and what makes each one unique for those people are themselves as the subject. So even there, the content, and the subject is the most important aspect, as there would be nothing to shoot without them. However, who is landscape for when it's just the same things shot over and over again in the same ways it's been shot countless times before? It has no message, it doesn't show me anything I don't already know. I have no personal connection or emotional investment in it. So ultimately, unless it's stunning, why would I be interested in it? So it's only purpose, if it is about nothing else, is decorative art - stuff to hang on a wall, and few people will pay for something they can simply download for free off Flickr is what you are selling is identical to what's on Flickr. I know I wouldn't. If there's a series of images that work well together there's a possible book in there I suppose... "Coastlines of Britain".... or "Forests of Britain"... whatever... but again, it needs to be tied together with a subject. It's rare that a random collection of disparate images will sell just because they're "good" by a photographer's standards. Books need to be ABOUT something usually. Landscape books particularly these days, need something more, as the world is saturated with such imagery. A quick look on Amazon confirms this: I searched for British Landscapes and found that most of the hits were calendars. Cornish's book is on there, but even that is themed.. "Coast". Most are: Even the only one I could find that contains random landscapes is still themed because it's the book of the winners from last year's Landscape Photographer of the Year.
However, if you type "landscape Photography" then you get far more hits, but now the majority of the books are about how to take landscape photography... not just books of landscapes. An interesting book of images from the Hebrides was in there though.. but again, it was the title and subject that made me interested in that, not the fact that it was landcsape. Clearly someone has been spending time creating work on a subject, and so has created something that probably goes beyond a book of pretty pictures. It has purpose.
So why are all these people, who I can only assume are fairly competent landscape photographers, creating books that are meant to show others how to take landscape images, when there's clearly a limited market for landscape photographs (which is also why they're earning money by writing books on landscape photography instead of actually selling their landscape photography)? The answer is easy - it's because that's what most amateurs do - take landscapes. You'll probably find similar books about Macro photography, or wildlife photography.
Wildlife is an interesting one too. Another very popular subject for the amateur, but one that again demonstrates that images need purpose. Other than magazines about photography, you only see it as part of documentary, or when the subject is of interest. As photography, it's usually only other people who shoot wildlife that care about it. Sure, we love wildlife documentaries on TV, and we love the imagery, but only when it's showing us something exciting, and only when someone pumps millions into it and wheels David Attenborough out to narrate it. There are dedicated wildlife magazines of course, but the reason people buy them is wildlife, not photography.
Subject matters.
So... is it all about being sociologist or environmentalist with a camera and carrying a message or text to explain the image or working on a project? In a way, yes, of course it is. The best work is work that is about something. It doesn't have to be a profound, world changing subject, but it needs to have enough to make it interesting, otherwise you're doing the equivalent of boring your relatives with your holiday snaps - just images YOU think are good, but despite how good they are, they're ultimately boring because they're just about nothing.... Here's a flower.... here's a smiling baby..... here's a cat.... Here's an old man shuffling down the street - what's that about... Oh.. never mind.. gone now and here's another cat... a landscape... where's this, what's it about.... oh... gone... now I'm looking at a crowded street... bang, bang, bang.... BORING! So YES.... you need a project, and not a stupid 52 or whatever... you need to focus on something, and produce work on it, otherwise you're just making stuff that only other amateur photographers will be interested in, because all there will be is the photography - all there will be to discuss is the photography. No one else will give a ****. Even most photographers will get bored after 2 minutes of being subjected to random crap that only means something to you because YOU took it. On this subject, when I ask people who take the same landscape shots over and over again why they do it, they always reply "Because this is MY take on it", yet I see nothing original. Just another shot of St Michael's Mount or whatever. Why do I care if YOU took it? That's only important to YOU. It's meaningless to me, and so far as I'm concerned, unless it is AMAZING.... which they never are, it will just be St Michael's Mount #34,765,712... or whatever. BORING.
Too many people take work that's only of interest to other photographers, and only do it to impress other photographers, and thus reduce photography to competitive sport. However... good photography appeals to everyone, and what makes photography interesting to those who don't give a crap about photography do you think? Subject... content.. story. Occasionally you'll sell a print to decorate someone's wall, sure... but think about it, when do most people BUY photography? They do so every day... in magazines... newspapers.... books.... but they're not interested in the photography itself... they're interested in whatever subject the book is about, or the magazine is about.
The only time landscape works these days (as perhaps it always has) is when it deals with The Sublime. Go do some reading. However... there's no trace of that in most these days.. we're immune to it... you've got to show something utterly new and unique and spell-binding.
Last edited:
But surely having so many calendars on landscapes or books on how to take landscapes tells you that is what people want to either look at or get better at photographing so they can look at it? A book on how we are wrecking the environment or a sociological journey of some poverty stricken country is much more likely to appeal only to a niche market, as how many people want that on their coffee table? How many times can you look at emulsified oil on a beach or a polluted stream or scorched earth or the face of craggy faced ethnic homeless man #416 before your eyes start to glaze over? It becomes like the charity appeals, you care at first and then you become numb to the message.
Even a good photographer like Edward Burtynsky isn't immune. I read an interview where he brought 10 of his favourite photos from his quarry series, showed them to the men there to make a trade for some worktops and the director of the quarry laughed 'who would want these or find them interesting?'. That's a talented photographer who was working on a project for years and probably editing a lot of shots to select his best and the verdict was 'no thanks, not interested'. He could have written an essay on the picture and nature reclaiming the ground we excavated etc and all they probably wanted was a group photo of them smiling in front of a big truck on a sunny day and they'd have hung it on the wall. It made me think if a rich, talented and successful photographer was struggling to convince with his best work then maybe simply doing a project doesn't elevate your photography to the next level to the masses. Maybe they are the ones doing it to impress and satisfy the conditions of the zeitgeist the tastemakers laid down when there is not much appetite there in the masses.
I don't know why everything has to be new and exciting to make it more legitimate though. How many times have you seen a cheetah hunt an antelope or a lion hunt wildebeest or a crocodile eat a zebra? Loads and loads probably, but 4.5 million still tune in to watch it on the BBC. Nobody is saying 'make the zebra hunt the crocodile I want to see something new!'. It is what it is and that's fine, because a lot of people still like to look at it, like they like to look at sweeping vistas and learn how to take their own photos that good.
It seems to me that these 'traditional' photos speak 1000 words and the projects need 1000 words to explain them. Sometimes unsatisfactorily.
Last edited:
Phil V
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 26,303
- Name
- Phil
- Edit My Images
- No
I thought the thread was about digital photography enabling the twisting of reality by making editing too easy.
- Messages
- 20,926
- Name
- Steve
- Edit My Images
- Yes
So did I.
Another point though. Many film users might just use a good scanner, scan in and then work in PS. Why, it is easier, it is progress. Many may argue with that, but tech and time marches on. I bank on mobile apps, my car changes gear itself, my camera has its own light meter...etc etc.
I admire the skill in developing in the dark room, but its a bit like knitting. Hardly anyone does it anymore as there is no need to...
Last edited:
- Messages
- 20,926
- Name
- Steve
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I'm not arguing the Don's case, just clarifying the point.
However - we need to keep an eye on the fact that 'photojournalism' has it's own rules - and it has nothing to do with the march of progress.
Agree. Maybe the rule changes are a good thing...but I, like you, enjoy digital and editing.
PMN
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 2,531
- Name
- Paul
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I'm not really getting your point. I still shoot film as well as digital, to me it's about using whatever tool you feel is appropriate for what you're doing. I adore digital, but nothing I've ever shot on digital in black and white has looked as good as what I've shot on black and white film and scanned. All technology moving on does is give you more options to achieve the same thing, it doesn't necessarily mean the newest option is the most appropriate one for what you're wanting to achieve.